Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: mickl Date: Dec 1, 2005 2:04am
Forum: etree Subject: How about some perspective here?

I first saw the Dead in 1966, and saw them 2-3 times/year in NYC through 1974. To give you all some perspective, we used to play the [heck] outta Anthem and Live Dead since we had NO OTHER live recordings available to us back in the stone age.

During that period of time, the Dead sold zip records, until American Beauty became a marginal "hit". These guys got ripped off by everyone and truly never made a dime until they started touring all year round in the 80's. Even when they made some dough, they supported more people than any rock group in history.

[some flamebait mod] want to BOYCOTT them because they wanna sell the downloads for half of what I-tunes does AND without copy restrictions. [some flamebait mod] Either throw it out, give it back, or pass it on.

[This thread has been significantly moderated. Please cool down and move on, thanks guys- mod.]

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-12-01 10:04:39

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JodyC Date: Nov 30, 2005 6:19am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

Perhaps mickl was simply implying that we all have so much more great music available today than before (even 2-3 years ago) to listen to, share, pass on to our kids, etc. Thats all, just enjoy what we have. Peace please.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: davidbarfield Date: Nov 30, 2005 7:24am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

"Perhaps mickl was simply implying that we all have so much more great music available today than before (even 2-3 years ago) to listen to, share, pass on to our kids, etc. Thats all, just enjoy what we have. Peace please."

perhaps.

more likely he meant just what he wrote. in my book, this ain't the end of civilization, nor archive--or the myriad sites and bands that have sprung up over the years because of the culture the grateful dead created. i tape a lot, d/l a lot, buy a lot...that's all aside from the point of what happened here.

this situation, to those of us who went out and did it, smacks of betrayal. that get's mfers angry. that's all.

i read phil's brief statement. i have no reason to doubt his sincerity--i think that contained within his commentary is a good depiction of the loss.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: liranfa Date: Dec 1, 2005 6:01am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

Reading Phil's statement about this issue, it's pretty clear that there's a division within the band. The remaining boys at one point were planning a 40th anniversary tour for this past summer and, obviously, it never materialized. The fact that the shows were pulled without Phil knowing a thing about it speaks volumes as to the state of the GD right now. Who's running the ship?.....Ship of Foooooooools.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Dec 1, 2005 6:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

you are right on :) sad state of affairs in GD land

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: aikox2 Date: Nov 30, 2005 2:19am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

Furthermore, you close by saying: "Either throw it out, give it back, or pass it on."

That is exactly what we are trying to do, "pass it on"! You contradict yourself, and do not make a very effective argument.

Aiko

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: davidbarfield Date: Dec 1, 2005 1:44am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

... we were granted permission to record the shows. we were granted permission to trade the shows. ...the rapidity of the interactions now does not change the deal. we made 'em, with their blessing--created the culture of collecting and trading that they are now taking advantage of. dig?

[deflamed to cool down- mod]

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-12-01 09:44:07

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ocomik Date: Dec 1, 2005 2:06am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

>> ... we were granted permission to record the shows. we were granted permission to trade the shows. ...the rapidity of the interactions now does not change the deal. we made 'em, with their blessing--created the culture of collecting and trading that they are now taking advantage of. dig? <<

This logic continues to pervade these forums regarding this issue and a sense of entitlement.

Your excerpt clearly states you were "granted" an option to something that you did not own. The rights holder did not surrender their claim of ownership only dictated how their material could be used and distributed.

The fact that they changed their minds (changed the "deal" as you might say) is just that and it's that simple. You were only entitled to the rights you were granted - nothing more, nothing less.

Sure their initial decision was a contradiction to what many of us believed, and I'm not completely sold on the latest decision, but I'm not about to deny them something that they clearly own and control.

If this was going to be the direction they, the Grateful Dead, were taking (turning their backs on the fans - at least that's how I see it) than I would just have to wave goodbye.

Michael OConnor
TheMusicNeverStopped.net

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HighNRGOne Date: Dec 1, 2005 3:21am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

Thoughtful comments. I just simply cannot agree with you that they 'clearly own and control' this material. With copyrights (or any rights over such content) control IS ownership. (NONE of these recordings are copyrighted and are probably not even copyrightable...at least not sufficient to sustain attempts to legally enforce such protections).

They did NOT maintain control, over decades, and many people gave a lot more time than they did to taking control of it (for all of the right reasons, of course). When these people took the material with the Dead's permission and acted in reliance on it, the Dead forfeited ownership (and thus, control).

Archive may choose to 'respect' the Dead's say-so over the material they claim (and for a time, over even the audience source material the Dead tried to hijack), but as far as any equitable notions of 'ownership', much less legal, it is GAME OVER for the Dead.


P.S. Ironically the Dead's decision to force this issue revealed how truly weak their position is and, I believe, makes them quite vulnerable. If people were to begin copying and trading their official release material (not that I condone this whatsoever) the Dead would have one hell of a time proving what is actually their 'direct from the vault' material and what has been public domain material for decades now. There are people out there who took such affront to the Dead's actions that I would not be surprised if rampant copying of their 'official' material occurs in statistically significant instances from now on.

This post was modified by HighNRGOne on 2005-12-01 11:21:28

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ocomik Date: Dec 1, 2005 4:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

>>(NONE of these recordings are copyrighted and are probably not even copyrightable...at least not sufficient to sustain attempts to legally enforce such protections).<<

First, I don't profess to be an intellectual property expert and definately believe there is room for debate about what copyrights could be enforced especially prior to 1976. But I can say matter of factly that a fair portion of these recordings are copyrighted with the Grateful Dead family holding those rights.

Just because the band allowed individuals to tape their performances doesn't mean they forfeited their rights to protect their material. In most cases the works were protected as soon as they were penned/published/performed.

You may think I'm crazy but why do you think restaurants no longer sing the standard happy birthday song for their patrons. Because it's protected by copyright and performing it without the appropriate permission, i.e. paying ASCAP fees, is a violation.

So for example, if someone was to record that birthday performance at a restaurant that DID PAY ASCAP - And then distribute that recording without permission from the copyright holder, they would be in violation of copyright infringement.

I don't see the taping of the Grateful Dead's performances to be any different than the example above. There is no way possible for a taper to create a "non-copyrighted" version of a performance whose material is already protected by copyright.

I'm sure some of this probably seems nonsensical and I must be misinformed but we're talking about our gov't here and copyright laws over the last 30 years have evolved into a muck that is robbing our society of creativity and innovation.

I for one would love to see those that hold the rights to the Grateful Dead music to continue to make it available here at the Archive in it's previous incarnation. I don't think I'll probably get my way but until then I am downloading my fair share of soundboards.

Thanks for the dialogue.
Mike

TheMusicNeverStopped.net

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: davidbarfield Date: Dec 1, 2005 7:23am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

a friend of mine is a laywer who's given me data about this
issue--IP-- so maybe i'll get him to chime in. in the meanwhile:

"First, I don't profess to be an intellectual property expert and definately believe there is room for debate about what copyrights could be enforced especially prior to 1976. But I can say matter of factly that a fair portion of these recordings are copyrighted with the Grateful Dead family holding those rights."

to keep it simple let's stay with the auds. my understanding is that the copyright that's held is in respect to the words and the music; not a particular recording of the performance of the same...unless, the artist records his art and sells it (a different issue entirely than what went on here).

"Just because the band allowed individuals to tape their performances doesn't mean they forfeited their rights to protect their material."

they have not lost a right to protect their material. no one is infringing on "alabama getaway" by sticking mics in the air and recording it. recording and performing are two distinct legal concepts. the supreme court ruled on this issue in estate of orbison v. 2live crew--pretty woman, remember that tune? even in a clearly lifted set of lyrics, the court granted 2 live crew license to market their **parody**...as sandra day noted: one is substantially (the hallmark of what makes something parody) different. thus defeating orbison's (well, if he were alive) claim that consumers would be "confused" by the 2 performances and cut into orbison's bottom line. even those stogy 'old b**tards had a laugh over that one...

In most cases the works were protected as soon as they were penned/published/performed.

ok, still nothing to do with the issue.

"You may think I'm crazy but why do you think restaurants no longer sing the standard happy birthday song for their patrons. Because it's protected by copyright and performing it without the appropriate permission, i.e. paying ASCAP fees, is a violation."

same as above. a restaurant in this case would be using the tune as part of a commercial endeavor. clealrly not the case with the auds.


"So for example, if someone was to record that birthday performance at a restaurant that DID PAY ASCAP - And then distribute that recording without permission from the copyright holder, they would be in violation of copyright infringement."

hmm, tapers getting really desperate these days? chill! just a joke.


"I don't see the taping of the Grateful Dead's performances to be any different than the example above. There is no way possible for a taper to create a "non-copyrighted" version of a performance whose material is already protected by copyright."


here's the grist: the difference is, and this is what made the freaking grateful dead, the grateful dead, is that they granted permission to tape their shows. they sold taper tickets, and had a policy that stated clearly that it was ok, rather ENCOURAGRED. thus turning over copyright protection of the particular recording to the recordist. so, if mr oade made a tape and i took it, copied it and said i made it...mr oade might actually have legal basis to say: hey, wtf? give me credit for that recording you (^*%&%^*&^*)!!! that's his only claim, as he cannot sell it. but may be able to demand attribution.

now there's legal muck here becasue i don't know of one court decision that deal with our specific sitch. but, if precedent has any weight, the gd's actions, would grant tapers ceratin protections. why? um, we're a nation of laws perhaps? and also, and don't ever forget::: you bought the tickets to all of those shows. we bought taper tickets from their organization, that came with an understanding. up until a fews days ago, both sides seemed to be upholding their ends of the agreement..until one decided to reneg.

if you think i'm wrong, consider: they gave back the auds. why? because they know, or at least their lawyers know, that nothing's for certain. and in court, things can always go wrong.



but i gotta say: i really object to the characterization made somewhere of those who be pissed as "entitled". entitled suggests that here nothing behind the demand/s. that's not the case.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: gdeadmatt Date: Dec 1, 2005 4:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

I argree. And for the longest time the band always overlooked these copyright laws and let the fans have their way with the recordings as long as it was shared. That policy was put in place while the band was still performing. The context of the taping policy was based on the band not having a need to look backward at their music but rather a focus that was purely on future music. Well the future of the music stopped, the context has changed, Jerry is dead, and so is the policy. Its all sad, but very true. I would like to see Archive restored to its former self, but I don't feel entitled to it like the rest...

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-12-01 12:56:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fishead Date: Dec 1, 2005 4:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

you need to watch more law & order

it's the deads music and it's their right to not want it posted,hosted,torrented,seeded,anywhere. its just so happens that all these years they didnt give a crap and now they do . guess what ..it's their right..

they made their mistake when the internet came about and didnt lay down stricter guidelines. now that they want to to do so,it's forbidden by the fans -b.s.
i dont agree with their decision but i can respect their wishes just like the archive is doin.obvious now the taking down of the aud shows was a mistake . most bands dont allow sbd recordings of their shows on here anyway. pretend its the beginning of the 2004 YEAR and the dead are just being allowed on the archive . but only aud shows are too be avail ..would we be bitching about the sbd's not be allowed..probably not..cause you shoud be godamm grateful that this site is here and that the dead are allowing any shows on this site.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HighNRGOne Date: Dec 1, 2005 10:30pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

...I guess my being a contract lawyer and former law clerk to someone currently a Supreme Court Chief Justice makes tv shows about criminal law (I believe?) seem a bit laughable and better left to those who enjoy absurd fantasy...

This post was modified by HighNRGOne on 2005-12-01 14:00:49

[ad hominems pruned, cool your duet guys- mod]

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-12-02 06:30:03

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fishead Date: Dec 1, 2005 10:31pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

[...]like i said before .what would you of done when this site was 1st allowed to host deads shows and they were only gonna be aud. you would'nt of said a word .

apparently i am not th eonly one here who respects whatever the dead want . i know its hard for a lawyer to think in a rational way. the sbd's could've been pulled along time ago.. so be happy ..you won !

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-12-02 06:31:37

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Dec 1, 2005 1:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

A guy named Phil Lesh and another fellow named John Barlowe have come out very strongly against this move. Since you started seeing shows in 1966 I assume you know who they are.

My question to you is: Are they spoiled... as well?

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-12-01 09:45:37

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fishead Date: Dec 1, 2005 8:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

did they actually say they were against sbd recording being pulled?

barlow is not a memmber and doesnt count .

and i don't recall phil saying that.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Dec 1, 2005 6:47pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

Barlowe may not be a "member" per se but he sure DOES count b/c w/out him Bobby wouldn't have had any lyrics to mess up during the shows other than covers like Walkin Blues and CC Rider. He wrote the lyrics to some of the best tunes and it's like saying Robert Hunter's views don't count.

Phil was obviously upset by the decision, at the very least at not being told about it. Read his official statement; i don't see how you could conclude anything other than that he thinks it was a bad move.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Saint of Circumstance Date: Dec 1, 2005 6:34am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: How about some perspective here?

I have the RIGHT to leave my wife and kids and run off with a she-male truck driver from Albany.

But it's not a nice thing to do.